Hi David,
They aren't effective and can't be, by
definition, because our economic system is
intentionally designed to keep high levels of
employment to keep wage levels and inflation down.
The people who benefit most from these policies
most are investors, people with capital, etc.
This is mainstream economic theory that can be
read in any textbook and is discussed regularly
on television. Income polarisation is a direct
result of the implementation of this policy in
the last 15 years.
As a worker at an inner city agency serving
poor people in a medium sized city, I worked
hard to keep dependencies from developing. But
in my opinion there is very little chance that
a very large number of poor people have any chance
to share in the wealth of our countries. For the
reason stated above, any time one person gets
ahead, they will merely displace someone else
from the labour market.
And, of course, the ones least able to compete,
the mentally ill, poorly educated, badly brought
up, less intelligent, discriminated minorities,
etc. will always be at the bottom of the
heap, being blamed for being responsible for
a situation that is making the competitive elite
very, very prosperous.
Any kind hearted soul who thinks they can
solve the poverty problem by donating to charity
is severely deluded. The welfare state is not
a liberal or left wing idea, it is the bandaid
that our decision makers use to cover up the
negative effects of their economic decisions.
In these conservative times, with the help of
people who love to kick the victim, it's become
OK to slash welfare programs to the bone and transfer
even more wealth to the people who own our economy.
Fire away! But preferably *not* on Sanet.
Jim
>As any streetcorner pusher will tell you, the easiest way to get
>someone hooked on something is to give it away for free. And
>having a totally dependent underclass like we have created is as
>far from a sustainable food situation as I can think of
>An economist will say that if you subsidize something, you'll
>have more of it. Well, we've been subsidizing "wrong" behavior
>like unemployment, inactivity, single parenthood, etc. for 30
>years. No surprise there is more of it than when we started.
>This is not to diminish the good intention of these programs,
>only to state that I believe they've made things worse
>People have to stop depending on the state to solve our
>problems, as it is unable even when it is willing. Worst of all,
>government always seem to reward bad behavior and punish good
>behavior (I can name many examples if anyone is interested)
>I see the welfare state as a copout for people unwilling to
>begin charity at home and help their neighbors. And especially,
>to change their consumption behavior so that poverty becomes
>obsolete
>I expect some flames for this, and I welcome
>your comments Thanks for lending me the soapbox for a minute
>DC
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Conner
>Center for Rural Studies
>207 Morrill Hall, UVM
>Burlington, VT 05405
>(802) 656-3021
>FAX: (802) 656-0776
>dconner@zoo.uvm.edu
>
>On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Frederick R. Magdoff wrote:
>
>>
>> Some of the postings on sanet keep repeating that the government
>> just screws things up.Given the stories in the press and the preachings
>> of many politicians it is not too surprising to many find people
>> (including those on sanet-mg) who believe that whenever the government
>> does something they screw it up. This happens not to be true, although
>> there are certainly plenty of things that governments do poorly (as there
>> are for private companies and charities). But the atmosphere created by
>> this sentiment is being used to justify a dismantling of social programs.
>> The current attempts to reduce and do away with social programs
>> in the US should be of interest to those concerned with sustainable
>> agriculture. If the main purpose of a humane and sustainable food system
>> is not to provide a good variety of nutritious food in adequate amounts
>> to all people, then what exactly is it?
>>
>> Three examples of succesful programs are given below
>> 1.) The US programs to alleviate hunger were initiated because
>> the private sector was not particular interested in feeding the hungry
>> and these programs actually worked reasonably well to reduce poverty and
>> hunger.
>> 2.) The US social security program, including aid to disabled and
>> elderly, was started precisely because the private sector did not provide
>> for these people and a very high percent were stuck in poverty. It has
>> been very successful and efficient in performing what it was set up to
>> do. (By the way, the stories about the supposed crises in the SS system
>> are unbelievable overkill in comparison to the relatively trivial nature
>> of the problem - for those interested in this, there is an interesting
>> article in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine).
>> 3) The Canadian national health care system -with all its
>> problems- is a model of efficiency and equitable distribution of
>> resources - compared to the US "system" where approximately 1/3 of the
>> money is used for administration and profits and where many people are
>> not even covered by insurance and do not have access to adequate care.
>>
>> The military program probably takes the cake for fraud and waste.
>> Somehow I haven't seen many advocates for dismantling social programs
>> because they are supposedly inefficient also calling for the dismantling
>> of the military!
>>
>>
>> FRED MAGDOFF
>>
>
>
Jim Wright
Box 129
Lougheed Alberta Canada
T0B 2V0
403 386-2479